RE: [DL] shootin' folks

["Mark Chiddicks" <Mark.Chiddicks@descisys.com>]

I don't disagree with a word you right, but THIRTEEN charges? THIRTEEN? And not a corpse within 50 feet of the wall. You'd have thought he'd have got the hint. Certainly Lincoln never removed a commander with such alacrity as he did old 'Sideburns'

Anyway, at Fredericksburg it was Burnside who chose the ground, he could have crossed the river somewhere else.

You are right about Grant & Sherman - Grant undersrood what no other Union Commander had grasped -  if you outnumber your enemy 3 to 1 you can take casualties at 2 to 1 and still win! In a war where the most dangerous think a soldier could do was stay in camp (deaths from disease outnumbered battlefield deaths by over 3 times) the most humane thing to do turned out to be wholesale slaughter! Look at Cold Harbour - a terrible Union defeat, by the standards of the war to date, but it was Lee who retreated afterwards. Lee didn't have the luxury of being able to think strategically after Gettysburg, every battle was about keeping his army between Grant and Richmond, and keeping the Confederacy alive one more day.

Had McClellan understood what Grant did the war would have ended within a few months of Antietam.


-----Original Message-----
From: Matthew M. DeForrest [mailto:mmdeforrest@worldnet.att.net]
Sent: Monday, 29 July 2002 1:55 p.m.
To: deadlands@gamerz.net
Subject: RE: [DL] shootin' folks


Hi, Mark!

-----Original Message-----
I once read that in the American Revolutionary War, it is estimated that
only 1 in every 200 musket balls fired hit someone! One of the main reasons
the civil war was such carnage is that the introduction of rifled barrels
increased this to about 1 in 20, but the generals took 3 years to notice!
--------------------------

The stat you're referring to comes from the march back to Boston after the
Battles of Lexington and Concord.  The patriot militia, firing with
British-issue Brown Bess muskets, had atrocious accuracy (Hence the linear
tactics practiced by Western armies of the period -- line up in dense ranks
and fire -- maybe someone will hit something).  On the other hand, they
reloaded three to five times faster than the rifles available at the time (3
rds per minute on average compared to 1 shot per minute).

As for the Civil War generals, they had the same problem as the
Revolutionary ones -- they had to fight where the battles were fought and
only one side got to choose.  Both side preferred to line up behind field
works and fire at the opposing force.  That's why, during Pickett's Charge,
the Union forces behind stone walls on the Cemetery and Seminary Ridges
chanted "Fredericksburg, Fredericksburg."  They may have been horrified, but
it was payback.  This is why most Union officers get the short end of the
stick on comparison with their Southern brethren.  While it's true that most
of the real geniuses went south, the Union did have some competent
commanders working under less than ideal conditions.  Don't get me wrong --
I'm with Winfield Scott.  If there's a great battle to be fought to save the
nation, give command to R. E. Lee.  At the same time, if there's a campaign
to be waged, I think I might lean towards Grant or Sherman over him (If
Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson isn't available.).

The biggest problem both faced was communications.  You need to keep the men
relatively close because you need to move them efficiently.  Unless you have
genius to spare (like the Confederacy did early on), you need to be able to
contact sub-commanders quickly.

I hope this ramble helps.  Take care.

Matt


To unsubscribe, send a message to esquire@gamerz.net with
	unsubscribe deadlands@gamerz.net
as the BODY of the message.  The SUBJECT is ignored.